The “Reconciliation” of the Nationalists and Cadets

Published:PravdaNo. 194, December 15, 1912.

      Published according to thePravdatext.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,[1975],

      Moscow,Volume 18,

      pages439-440.Translated:Stepan ApresyanTranscription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      (2004).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

Themost important political result of the Duma debate on
the declaration of the government is the touching unity of thenationalists, Octobrists andCadets. Our Russian
so-called “society” yields so readily to high-sounding and cheap phrases
that we have to lay particular emphasis on thisrealresult of the
action ofallparties, with their criticism of political questions
of principle.

“Theparties disappeared,” wrote the nationalistNovoye Vremya(No. 13199). “Deputy Maklakov’s excellent speech
   (at the December 7 sitting) united the entire Duma, which applauded him,
   forgetful of all party calculations and differences of opinion.”

“Theparties disappeared,” wrote the nationalistNovoye Vremya(No. 13199). “Deputy Maklakov’s excellent speech
   (at the December 7 sitting) united the entire Duma, which applauded him,
   forgetful of all party calculations and differences of opinion.”

Thiscomment by anationalistpaper, the chief organ of all
toadyism, of persecution of Jews and non-Russians in general. should be
remembered and pondered by all who take a serious interest in politics.

Itwas not because they were “forgetful” of party differences of
opinion that the Octobrists and nationalists, the Guchkovites and theNovoye Vremyapeople applauded Maklakov, but because they
appreciated the profoundunity of opinionof the liberal
bourgeoisie and the nationalist landlords.

Maklakovrevealed that unity of opinion on the fundamental issues of
home and foreign policy. “While Russia does not seek war, neither does she
dread it,” exclaimed this Cadet, to prolonged applause by thenationalists. How could they help applauding? Any politically
literate person realises that these words expressed the Cadets’acceptanceof the policy of resorting to the threat of war,the policy of militarism, of armaments by land and by sea that oppress and
ruin the mass of the people.

Theliberals, who support militarism, are not feared by the
reactionaries, who very correctly argue that support for militarism isaction, whereas liberal exclamations aremere wordswhich
simply cannot be made a reality so long as the reactionaries are in
power. “Give us millions to spend on armaments, and we will clap and
applaud your liberal talk”—this is what every clever semi-feudal
landlord says, and should say, to the Duma
Balalaikins.[1]

Andwhat about Maklakov’s stand on home policy? Is it accidental that
the Right-wing priests are highly satisfied, asRechitself
testifies, or thatNovoye Vremyagleefully reprints Maklakov’s
“keynote”: “Let there be no division of Russia into two camps—the
country and the government”?

No,it is not accidental, because by his whining about the desirability
of “reconciliation” Maklakovin factechoes Kokovtsov. For
Kokovtsov, too, desires “reconciliation”!

Kokovtsovdesiresnochange in the balance of the social
forces. Maklakov didnotshowthe slightestunderstanding
of thekindof change that is necessary orhowit can be
brought about. “Reconciliation” is precisely the term whichobscuresthe only serious question, that of the conditions and
means of achieving this change—obscures it with rotten phrases that say
nothing, that blunt the civic consciousness of the masses and lull them.

A“society” which is capable of applauding the speeches of a Maklakov
about “reconciliation” deserves nothing but contempt.

Asfor the speech of Malinovsky, the workers’ representative, on the
Ministerial declaration, both the nationalists and the Cadets took pains
not to notice that in it the democrats wereposingquestions. But
then Malinovsky’s speech wasnotintended for their like at all.

[1]Balalaikin—a character in M. Saltykov-Shchedrin’sA
Modern Idyll, personifying a liberal windbag, impostor and liar.